Seismic Design of Bridges
Seismic Design of Bridges
of Bridges
Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.
AASHTO - Division IA
Draft Specifications, 1996
SCDOT 2001 Seismic Design Specifications
Comparison Between LRFD & SCDOT Specs.
SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps
Training and Implementation
Conclusions
AASHTO Div IA
Sandblow in Charleston
Draft Specifications
1996 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps
Difference in spectral acceleration
between South Carolina and California
Normal Bridges : 2/3 of the 2% in 50
yr. Event
Draft Specifications
10
12
13
Highest Hazard
Seismicity of South
Carolina 1977 to 1996
1977 to 1997
Lowest Hazard
14
spans
1-62 flat slab deck supported by PCP
63-104 /33 -meter girder spans and 2 columns
per bent supported by shafts.
The main span over the river channel consists of
a 3 span steel girder frame w/ 70 meter center
span.
105-118 flat slab deck supported by PCP
15
16
Spectral Accelerations
SS
S1
SDS
SD1
1.43
0.407
1.43
0.651
0.0503 0.0104 0.0503 0.0167
Site Coefficients
Fa
Fv
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.60
LRFD Curve
Site Specific Original Curve
SCDOT Curve, soil type II
SCDOT Curve, soil type III
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
* Longitudinal
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Period, T (sec)
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
17
18
19
21
22
Need for:
New Specifications
South Carolina Seismic
Hazard Maps
23
24
27
30
Design Levels
Single Level 2% / 50 years
Normal Bridges
Essential Bridges
Two Level : 2% / 50 years and 10% / 50
years
Critical Bridges
31
III
II
32
33
VALUES OF Fa AS A FUNCTION OF
SITE CLASS AND MAPPED SHORTPERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE
ACCELERATION SS (TABLE 3.3.3A)
Site
Clas
s
SS=0.50
SS=0.75
SS=1.00
SS1.25
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
2.5
1.7
1.2
0.9
34
Primary
Design or System
Retrofit
a, b, c, d,
Objective
e, g
Secondary
System
f, h, i
f
i
b
e
a
d
Recent
Technology
h
g
Collapse
Prevention
Limited
Damage
2% in 50 Yrs.
Essentially
Elastic
Increasing
performance
Increasing earthquake
hazard
1-6
35
36
Site Class
SD_4A
A
B
SD_4B
C
SD_4C
D
SD_4D
E
SD_4E
SDI-SEE
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
2
Periods T (sec)
37
APPLICABILITY (3.1)
New Bridges
Bridge Types
Slab
Beam Girder
Box Girder
Design Approaches
(4.7.1)
Design
Approach
Ductility
Demand
Minimal
Plastic Action
Limited
May be Used
Not required to
Maintain
Limited
May be Used
May require
closure of
limited usage
Not
warranted
May require
closure or
removal
Moderate
Plastic Action
D 2
D 4
Significant
Plastic Action May be higher
Protection Reparability
Systems
40
Thanks
Seismic Design
of Bridges
Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.
42